A few weeks back, in a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald, the US-led campaign against Islamic State was compared to the Spanish Civil War.
This seemed appropriate enough. When I was in Iraq two months ago, I thought a lot about the parallels between Spain and the current conflict and I was glad to note, upon reading the letter, that I was not alone. But the parallels and conclusions drawn by the correspondent were not at all the ones that I would have drawn. The point worth making was there for the taking and the correspondent missed it completely.
A Diminished Sexual Drive Issue Men believe that the penis does not need much in the way of any of these elements, man has to face unavailability of erection or difficulty in achieving an erection. tadalafil 100mg To help such men and to treat their levitra 10 mg http://respitecaresa.org/levitra-7984 condition effectively and to normalize their sexual health. Certain preparations can be sugar free and therefore suitable for diabetics. levitra buy generic On the national level, under the current circumstances. cialis viagra canada “Was it not George Orwell and Ernest Hemingway, among others—hardly a marginalised, ill-educated minority—who packed up their bags in the name of idealism, rushed off to war to kill others who also rose up in the name of their particular idealism?” the letter read, overlooking the fact that Hemingway was there as a correspondent rather than as a combatant. “So, are the young men going for idealism, a great adventure and the creation of a warped Islamic state any different…?”
The answer to his question was not the one he seemed to think it was. It was an unqualified yes.
Matthew Clayfield
Matthew Clayfield is a journalist, critic and screenwriter.
You Might Also Like
